1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

Earth is not orbiting the Sun as we are taught

(5:57) Swiss-born self-taught scientist Nassim Haramein is a controversial figure in the scientific community. Here he explains why the Earth and other planets do not orbit the Sun as we are taught, rather they are dragged by the Sun in a spiral pattern.

I'm pretty sure the solar system's not traveling in a direction conveniently perpendicular to its plane. I don't see the use in this model - swapping inertial frames only makes the maths harder and isn't useful.

I'm pretty sure the solar system's not traveling in a direction conveniently perpendicular to its plane. I don't see the use in this model - swapping inertial frames only makes the maths harder and isn't useful.

For those who comment: Yes, he tells the more complex model of our solar system, that you all seem to know about, but some "children" do not know or understand it. Let them learn; this video is quite easy to understand the complexity

For those who comment: Yes, he tells the more complex model of our solar system, that you all seem to know about, but some "children" do not know or understand it. Let them learn; this video is quite easy to understand the complexity

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
placid flamingo(2048 days ago)

Hmmmm he's trying to add some spirituality to things (which isn't needed) but yes, the 2D model is a very simplified model, and it needs to be for children to learn, let them come to an understanding of one principle and then move onto the next! But don't try and say..wait a minute....this is wrong!....it's not absolutely correct but at this point, the kids might be a bit young to handle the higher principles of cosmological physics

Hmmmm he's trying to add some spirituality to things (which isn't needed) but yes, the 2D model is a very simplified model, and it needs to be for children to learn, let them come to an understanding of one principle and then move onto the next! But don't try and say..wait a minute....this is wrong!....it's not absolutely correct but at this point, the kids might be a bit young to handle the higher principles of cosmological physics

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
guest(2048 days ago)

We teach this just as a simplified way to children. Yes you are correct, but if you factor in all the trajectories then the model becomes confusing (sun, milky way, universe)
This is the view held by the scientific community....

We teach this just as a simplified way to children. Yes you are correct, but if you factor in all the trajectories then the model becomes confusing (sun, milky way, universe)
This is the view held by the scientific community....

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2035 days ago)

Latest comment: Couldn't take anything he said seriously with that music. Had to do a little research into the credibility of this man. Turns out he is not exactly "a controversial figure in the scientific community" rather than a new age hippie who misunderstands basic physics. Pointless...
LINK

Latest comment: Couldn't take anything he said seriously with that music. Had to do a little research into the credibility of this man. Turns out he is not exactly "a controversial figure in the scientific community" rather than a new age hippie who misunderstands basic physics. Pointless...
LINK

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Kamikaze(2048 days ago)

The "flat" model is a simplification. Aside from a few minor variations of practical importance only to astrophysicists, the diference betwee the flat model and the "real" one is the same as the difference between the chicken crossing the road and the road crossing the chicken: frame of reference.

The "flat" model is a simplification. Aside from a few minor variations of practical importance only to astrophysicists, the diference betwee the flat model and the "real" one is the same as the difference between the chicken crossing the road and the road crossing the chicken: frame of reference.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Tiny Tim(2048 days ago)

This' guy's quite right regarding the movement of the objects within our solar system. But, our Solar system is part of a galaxy, and that galaxy is part of a galactic cluster. So why hasn't he added those movements to his example. He's moved on from saying the Earth is not flat, but only goes on to say that there is an atmosphere which means the Earth is flat and thick.

This' guy's quite right regarding the movement of the objects within our solar system. But, our Solar system is part of a galaxy, and that galaxy is part of a galactic cluster. So why hasn't he added those movements to his example. He's moved on from saying the Earth is not flat, but only goes on to say that there is an atmosphere which means the Earth is flat and thick.

Wow - no duh, Nassim. Did you really grow up thinking that the universe was a static picture on a piece of paper (with our Sun conveniently set right in the middle)? And have you expanded your graphics to show the Milky Way's journey through the universe, 'cause that could be a really big video, ya know?

Wow - no duh, Nassim. Did you really grow up thinking that the universe was a static picture on a piece of paper (with our Sun conveniently set right in the middle)? And have you expanded your graphics to show the Milky Way's journey through the universe, 'cause that could be a really big video, ya know?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

glortman(2048 days ago)

Well Nassim is both right and wrong. Relative motion and trajectories are based on the viewpoint of the observer. When you are walking from one side of a moving train to the other, to an external observer you are moving at a tangent to the direction of the train and to the earth. To someone on the train, you are just moving across the train. So he is defining his viewpoint as being someone outside of our solar system. Personally, I live on earth, which is within the solar system. I can understand the spiral trajectory, but outside of my imagination and such videos, it is not possible for me to see it.

Well Nassim is both right and wrong. Relative motion and trajectories are based on the viewpoint of the observer. When you are walking from one side of a moving train to the other, to an external observer you are moving at a tangent to the direction of the train and to the earth. To someone on the train, you are just moving across the train. So he is defining his viewpoint as being someone outside of our solar system. Personally, I live on earth, which is within the solar system. I can understand the spiral trajectory, but outside of my imagination and such videos, it is not possible for me to see it.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Capt. Obvious(2048 days ago)

this should be obvious ? the planets do not have circular trajectories just look at the JPL diagrams